(10-06-2015 09:23 PM)NoDak Wrote:  To weaken the MVC, Wichita State has to be removed. Then MO St and nearly the whole conference would take phone calls.

Highly doubt the Sun Belt can pull Wichita St, which is the lynchpin. Wichita State would listen to the American, MWC, and Big East, but nothing less.

Wichita could be like the Kansas version of the U of Tulsa, if it added football. I'd think they'd actually be a great travel partner for Tulsa, in that scenario. And obviously their bball would only increase the American even higher.

Whats crazy was Wichita St was 1-A and even met the criteria to stay 1-A when the NCAA forced teams down into 1-AA. Unfortunately for them, half of the MVC did not meet the criteria to stay 1-A, only 3 out of 8 did, needed 3 out of 6 or 4 out of 7 or 8, and thus they had to make a decision, along with New Mexico st and Tulsa.

New Mexico St left immediately and joined up with the Big West. Tulsa and Wichita remained and played in the mixed 1-A, 1-AA league until the conference ended football after the 1985 season. Wichita and Tulsa went independent for football after that but Witchita only made it 1 year before pulling the plug on their program. If Wichita could have hung in there like Tulsa, I wonder if they would have been in on the WAC 16 or even Conference USA.

If Wichita could support a 1-A program under the old standards, I absolutely beleive they could under these new looser standards. You gotta wonder where they would be now if their conference had made the cut in 1982.

(10-07-2015 11:04 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Whats crazy was Wichita St was 1-A and even met the criteria to stay 1-A when the NCAA forced teams down into 1-AA. Unfortunately for them, half of the MVC did not meet the criteria to stay 1-A, only 3 out of 8 did, needed 3 out of 6 or 4 out of 7 or 8, and thus they had to make a decision, along with New Mexico st and Tulsa.

New Mexico St left immediately and joined up with the Big West. Tulsa and Wichita remained and played in the mixed 1-A, 1-AA league until the conference ended football after the 1985 season. Wichita and Tulsa went independent for football after that but Witchita only made it 1 year before pulling the plug on their program. If Wichita could have hung in there like Tulsa, I wonder if they would have been in on the WAC 16 or even Conference USA.

If Wichita could support a 1-A program under the old standards, I absolutely beleive they could under these new looser standards. You gotta wonder where they would be now if their conference had made the cut in 1982.

Wow, I didn't know that Wichita was actually right there with Tulsa.

How is it that a small, bible college like Tulsa was able to maintain football but a large, state university like Wichita had to drop it??

Crazy isnt it. It also an example of how 1aa football is generally a money loser. When a school like Wichita would rather drop football then try the 1aa route like the rest of the MVC

(10-07-2015 11:54 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Crazy isnt it. It also an example of how 1aa football is generally a money loser. When a school like Wichita would rather drop football then try the 1aa route like the rest of the MVC

Well, I still don't see why Wichita state dropped football entirely. I'd like to know the full history of the decision and who pulled the levers. I suspect there was more to it than that.

Why wouldn't it just do exactly whatever Southern Illinois did?

http://www.kansas.com/sports/college/wic...12729.html

Check this out. At the end ut says savings from dropping to 1aa would have been minimal

Thanks for the article. It's amazing to see how puny the numbers were back then. $57k/year for a head football coach in what would be comparable to CUSA today.

Trying to raise $3.6 million to keep football funded.


I guess they just didn't have many fans or boosters. But again, it makes me wonder how Tulsa survived at I-A or how Southern Illinois survived at I-AA.

No doubt. They had to be averaging at lesst 17k as that was the 1a requirement. I wonder what the average and median.salaries were for football coaches back then. This is just my speculation but i wouldn't be surprised if the president or some other higher up just wanted to kill the program. If peer institutions with worse attendance could make it work i have a hard time believing the shockers could not

(10-06-2015 05:59 PM)utpotts Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 12:36 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  West:
Lamar/Texas State/UTA
South Dakota/South Dakota State/North Dakota State
Northern Iowa/Illinois State/Indiana State
Arkansas State/Missouri State/UALR
La. Lafayette/La.-Monroe/McNeese State or Jackson State

East:
Troy/South Alabama/Chattanooga
North Florida/Georgia State/Georgia Southern
Coastal Carolina/Appalachian State/Liberty
Indiana State/Youngstown State/Eastern Kentucky
James Madison/Delaware/Stony Brook

To pull the raid on MVC for a death blow? You need to take more schools out of there. You get all their football playing members which only leaves Western Illinois in the MVFC. Wichita State is more interested in the MWC than the Sun Belt.

What do you smoke on a daily basis?

Whatever it is, he needs to stop

(10-07-2015 11:34 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 11:04 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Whats crazy was Wichita St was 1-A and even met the criteria to stay 1-A when the NCAA forced teams down into 1-AA. Unfortunately for them, half of the MVC did not meet the criteria to stay 1-A, only 3 out of 8 did, needed 3 out of 6 or 4 out of 7 or 8, and thus they had to make a decision, along with New Mexico st and Tulsa.

New Mexico St left immediately and joined up with the Big West. Tulsa and Wichita remained and played in the mixed 1-A, 1-AA league until the conference ended football after the 1985 season. Wichita and Tulsa went independent for football after that but Witchita only made it 1 year before pulling the plug on their program. If Wichita could have hung in there like Tulsa, I wonder if they would have been in on the WAC 16 or even Conference USA.

If Wichita could support a 1-A program under the old standards, I absolutely beleive they could under these new looser standards. You gotta wonder where they would be now if their conference had made the cut in 1982.

Wow, I didn't know that Wichita was actually right there with Tulsa.

How is it that a small, bible college like Tulsa was able to maintain football but a large, state university like Wichita had to drop it??

The issue with Wichita was they DIDN'T meet the I-A criteria - their stadium seated less than 30K, which was the requirement at the time.

Wichita did meet the 1a criteria along with tulsa and new mexico st.

(10-07-2015 11:54 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Crazy isnt it. It also an example of how 1aa football is generally a money loser. When a school like Wichita would rather drop football then try the 1aa route like the rest of the MVC

They were losing money anyways, like most FBS programs.


They had three choices:

1) Expand Stadium to I-A standard, go independent in football (like Tulsa)
2) Play I-AA
3) Drop Football


It wouldn't have been that expensive to add a few hundred seats.

They didnt need stadium expansion. The requirement was 17k a year in average attendance over a 1 or 4 year span depending on the sizeof your stadium

(10-07-2015 11:59 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 11:54 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Crazy isnt it. It also an example of how 1aa football is generally a money loser. When a school like Wichita would rather drop football then try the 1aa route like the rest of the MVC

Well, I still don't see why Wichita state dropped football entirely. I'd like to know the full history of the decision and who pulled the levers. I suspect there was more to it than that.

Why wouldn't it just do exactly whatever Southern Illinois did?

Tulsa is deeply endowed, while Wichita St isnt. Tulsa has had petroleum bucks through most of its history.

The Koch brothers could bring back Shockers football if they chose to.

(10-07-2015 02:29 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Wichita did meet the 1a criteria along with tulsa and new mexico st.

No - an audit (ie counting seats) showed they were a few hundred short of listed capacity of 30K, no longer eligible for I-A.

They used that as an excuse to drop a poorly attended, financially bankrupt program.


And attendance then was around 10K a game, so they didn't meet the revised standard, either.

(10-07-2015 02:31 PM)solohawks Wrote:  They didnt need stadium expansion. The requirement was 17k a year in average attendance over a 1 or 4 year span depending on the sizeof your stadium

Or a minimum of 30,000 seats.

That requirement was dropped later.


They didn't meet either requirement

http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/NCAANewsArchive/...820215.pdf

Per this article from the ncaa they met the guidelines. As you can see it was all about average attendance with the stadium size only effecting how often one of the criteria to meet the guidelines must be met

(10-07-2015 02:41 PM)solohawks Wrote:  http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/NCAANewsArchive/...20215.pdfh

Per this article from the ncaa they met the guidelines. As you can see it was all about average attendance with the stadium size only effecting how often one of the criteria to meet the guidelines must be met

Bad link

Corrected

(10-07-2015 02:26 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 11:34 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 11:04 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Whats crazy was Wichita St was 1-A and even met the criteria to stay 1-A when the NCAA forced teams down into 1-AA. Unfortunately for them, half of the MVC did not meet the criteria to stay 1-A, only 3 out of 8 did, needed 3 out of 6 or 4 out of 7 or 8, and thus they had to make a decision, along with New Mexico st and Tulsa.

New Mexico St left immediately and joined up with the Big West. Tulsa and Wichita remained and played in the mixed 1-A, 1-AA league until the conference ended football after the 1985 season. Wichita and Tulsa went independent for football after that but Witchita only made it 1 year before pulling the plug on their program. If Wichita could have hung in there like Tulsa, I wonder if they would have been in on the WAC 16 or even Conference USA.

If Wichita could support a 1-A program under the old standards, I absolutely beleive they could under these new looser standards. You gotta wonder where they would be now if their conference had made the cut in 1982.

Wow, I didn't know that Wichita was actually right there with Tulsa.

How is it that a small, bible college like Tulsa was able to maintain football but a large, state university like Wichita had to drop it??

The issue with Wichita was they DIDN'T meet the I-A criteria - their stadium seated less than 30K, which was the requirement at the time.

That is 100% false. Cessna Stadium seated 30,000 until about 15 years ago when some seating was removed to expand the track. I could write a book on this but won't. What happened at WSU in regards to football was very similar to what went down at UAB. All of the state schools are under one board of Regents that at the time had only Kansas University grads on it. Since then, the state has enacted a law that requires equal representation but the damage was done. Everytime a study or commission has been done on reinstating football, the results were always yes only to be shut down by the Regents. The two previous Presidents at WSU were hired by an all KU regents and rumor was they were hired with the informal request to not bring back football. The current President, who was hired by a Board with fair representation did not have to agree to it and made it clear Football was up to him. If Football was to ever come back at Wichita State, it will be under him.